Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children.

[Raiden]

As a movie buff, I really respect Ebert's opinion on films.

Films.

On the same token, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Their opinion.

The only way an opinion gains weight is when people either obsess about it or give it credit by giving it undue attention. It's the opinion of a guy who loves movies and doesn't really get video games. My grandfather's extent to video games was Robotnik's Evil Bean Machine on the original sega genesis, so I'm not really going to ask my grandfather whether he believes video games to be a valid artistic media. Also, video games have only been around in a form we can recognize for a few decades. They haven't even been out for a full century yet. So it will take a while before it is considered an artistic medium.

So yeah. I can kind of see why some people might get upset, but in truth video games really haven't earned the Art Cred yet. Just a simple fact.

[Aerozord]

but who cares whats classified as art? Its by no means a statement of quality, there are alot of bad art, or things called art by some and not by others.

Maybe its because I'm not an art snob but ALL I care about is that I personally get something out of it. I can appreciate a good painting but I honestly care only that I find it visually pleasing. Most "art" has no real value to me because as soon as I am done analyzing it, I'm done with it. Which for most takes a few seconds.

Matters none to me if games are "art" and even less so what a single individual thinks. It entertains me, and adds more to the core of my being then most "art". I spend alot more time discussing Portal then Mona Lisa, and considering I'm a Da Vinci admirer thats saying something

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

A) You say that, but I again direct you to the comics example. By applying a blanket statement over a media that prevents it from being considered art, you crush it. Then it never will be, and people will never take it seriously. Yes, "artistic" games are few, but the same could be said for movies. Yet movies are considered an art form. The ability to call a work art brings a respect and acceptance to it.

B) Again, the same could be said for movies. Or anything for that matter. 90% of everything is shit. Take Persona 3. A wonderful game, not particularly graphically advanced compared to other titles, but absolutely dripping with symbolism. If it were a movie, Ebert would likely praise it for the set design, music, and message. It's definitely in the 10% of things that are good. It is art. Maybe not "artistic" in some snooty sense, but the sum of the whole is a masterwork about loss and mortality and living on.

C) He gave Glenn Beck both barrels, though, so he's not ALL bad.

These arguments are really good. Better if you value art. I don't, really. Because the definition is kind of up in the air anyway, so much so that either anything is art, in which case the word is meaningless, or whatever the writer thinks is art is art, neither of which satisfy me. Ebert himself, and the lady he's rebutting both admit there's easily three or four definitions right off the bat.

The interactivity of games seems to be some kind of block in this case. For some reason there's a notion you have to sit back and...just appreciate art? I don't really know. The fact that you play a game and play it to win excludes it from the art category. I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive.

His definition was....things that stimulate senses and emotions? So like, granulated sugar is art? Oh, artifically produced. Hey I guess that works! I mean you are literally arranging elements and shit, woo!

Ebert kind of admits games are art anyway, just really really horrible art at this point. I generally agree, even while knowing I've developed actual emotional connections to like, fucking Mass Effect characters.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

So, you've never played ICO, eh?

No, though I'd probably try it if it wasn't rare as hell and like sixty bucks when it does show up. If it's anything like SotC, I don't know if I would be that impressed. Plus it has enough hype to choke an elephant and that rarely flies well with me.

[BattyAsHell]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Who cares?

Originally Posted by Azisien

No, though I'd probably try it if it wasn't rare as hell and like sixty bucks when it does show up. If it's anything like SotC, I don't know if I would be that impressed. Plus it has enough hype to choke an elephant and that rarely flies well with me.

I'm pretty frugal myself (Read: cheap), and can relate to buying into hype only to be disappointed.

But if you have any interest in playing certain old, rare game like Ico, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and cough up the cash.. Otherwise, it'll just get more expensive down the line and than you'll never play it.

I certainly didn't want to spend nearly 60 bucks on the Zelda Bonus disc for my Gamecube that many people got for free, but considering it's about 15 bucks per cart on the original systems, it's stil about as good a deal as you'd find collecting them separately.. And more convenient.

And you only live once, so why live without experiencing them just to save a few dollars?

I try not to think about the fact the disc is a lot cheaper now.. v_v;

[Yumil]

ICO is summed up pretty well in this video.

Ok, not so much, but still it got really annoying>.< I wont deny it's got quality over the gameplay, but I wouldnt buy it for $60.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Yumil

Ok, not so much, but still it got really annoying>.< I wont deny it's got quality over the gameplay, but I wouldnt buy it for $60.

...

...Blasphemy.

[Yumil]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

...

...Blasphemy.

By the time I played it, I hated escort quests, so that may have tinted my view.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by BattyAsHell

And you only live once, so why live without experiencing them just to save a few dollars?

One part doubt that Ico is some kind of "I HAVE to play this before I die OR ELSE" and one part so I can spend those few dollars on other games, or parts of cars, houses, solar panels, thermite. You know, the good stuff!

[BattyAsHell]

Originally Posted by Azisien

One part doubt that Ico is some kind of "I HAVE to play this before I die OR ELSE" and one part so I can spend those few dollars on other games, or parts of cars, houses, solar panels, thermite. You know, the good stuff!

That's good too.

Not saying owning a game (Or anything else) is a do or die thing. I'm just talking as someone who usually deprives himself on things, and realized sometimes you just have to splurge.

My other motto is "When it doubt, do without" though. So it's all good.

[Premmy]

The idea that art recquires passive enjoyment kinda goes against the fact that pretty much EVERYONE considers Dance and theater art, and they aren't things designed to be passively enjoyed.